Johnson v. Brown ( 2023 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION CHAD JOHNSON, Plaintiff, No. 1:22-cv-01002-CL v. ORDER KATE BROWN; KRIS STRICKLER, Defendants. _______________________________________ AIKEN, District Judge. This case comes before the Court on a Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Mark Clarke. ECF No. 6. Judge Clarke recommends that this case be dismissed for want of prosecution. Under the Federal Magistrates Act, the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). For those portions of a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations to which neither party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152 (1985) (“There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate’s report to which no objections are filed.”). Although no review is required in the absence of objections, the Magistrates Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge[] sua sponte . . . under a de novo or any other standard.” Id. at 154. The Advisory Committee Notes to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the court should review the recommendation for “clear error on the face of the record.” In this case, no party has filed objections to the F&R. The Court has reviewed the F&R and finds no error. The F&R, ECF No. 6, is therefore ADOPTED. This case is DISMISSED for want of prosecution. Final judgment shall be entered accordingly. It is so ORDERED and DATED this _1_3__th_ day of February 2023. /s/Ann Aiken ANN AIKEN United States District Judge